Author
Topic: Biblical Inconsistencies (Read 3823 times)

This is taken from 101 Contradictions in the Bible, by Shabir Ally.Yes I know there is a refutation to this circulating online, but I must say it is not very convincing to me.. Can you refute them?

Contradiction #1Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel? (a) God did (2 Samuel 24:1) (b) Satan did (1 Chronicles 21:1).

Contradiction #2 In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel? (a) Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9). (b) One million, one hundred thousand (1 Chronicles 21:5).

Contradiction #3How many fighting men were found in Judah? (a) Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9). (b) Four hundred and seventy thousand (1 Chronicles 21:5).

Contradiction #4God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine? (a) Seven (2 Samuel 24:13). (b) Three (1 Chronicles 21:12).

Contradiction #5How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem? (a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26). (b) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2).

Contradiction #6How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem? (a) Eighteen (2 Kings 24:. (b) Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9).

Contradiction #7How long did he rule over Jerusalem? (a) Three months (2 Kings 24:. (b) Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9).

Contradiction #8The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time? (a) Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:. (b) Three hundred (1 Chronicles 11:11).

Contradiction #9When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after? (a) After (2 Samuel 5 and 6). (b) Before (1 Chronicles 13 and 14).

Contradiction #10How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark? (a) Two (Genesis 6:19, 20). (b) Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8, 9).

Contradiction #11When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture? (a) One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4). (b) Seven thousand (1 Chronicles 18:4).

Contradiction #13In what year of King Asa's reign did Baasha, King of Israel die? (a) Twenty-sixth year (1 Kings 15:33 - 16:. (b) Still alive in the thirty-sixth year (2 Chronicles 16:1).

Contradiction #14How many overseers did Solomon appoint for the work of building the temple? (a) Three thousand six hundred (2 Chronicles 2:2) (b) Three thousand three hundred (1 Kings 5:16).

Contradiction #15Solomon built a facility containing how many baths? (a) Two thousand (1 Kings 7:26). (b) Over three thousand (2 Chronicles 4:5).

Contradiction #16Of the Israelites who were freed from the Babylonian captivity, how many were the children of Pahrath-Moab? (a) Two thousand eight hundred and twelve (Ezra 2:6). (b) Two thousand eight hundred and eighteen (Nehemiah 7:11).

Contradiction #17How many were the children of Zattu? (a) Nine hundred and forty-five (Ezra 2: (b) Eight hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:13).

Contradiction #18How many were the children of Azgad? (a) One thousand two hundred and twenty-two (Ezra 2:12). (b) Two thousand three hundred and twenty-two (Nehemiah 7:17). Contradiction #19How many were the children of Adin? (a) Four hundred and fifty-four (Ezra 2:15). (b) Six hundred and fifty-five (Nehemiah 7:20).

Contradiction #20How many were the children of Hashum? (a) Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:19). (b) Three hundred and twenty-eight (Nehemiah 7:22).

Contradiction #21How many were the children of Bethel and Ai? (a) Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:28). (b) One hundred and twenty-three (Nehemiah 7:32).

Contradiction #22Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the total number of the whole assembly was 42,360. Yet the numbers do not add up to anything close. The totals obtained from each book is as follows: (a) 29,818 (Ezra). (b) 31, 089 (Nehemiah).

Contradiction #24What was the name of King Abijah's mother? (a) Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2). (b) Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20). But Absalom had only one daughter whose name was Tamar (2 Samuel 14:27).

Contradiction #32How many generations were there from the Babylonian exile until Christ? (a) Matthew says fourteen (Matthew 1:17). (b) But a careful count of the generations reveals only thirteen (see Matthew 1:12-16).

Contradiction #34Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come? (a) Yes (Matthew 11:14, 17:10-13). (b) No (John 1:19-21).

Contradiction #35Would Jesus inherit David's throne? (a) Yes. So said the angel (Luke 1:32). (b) No, since he is a descendant of Jehoiakim (see Matthew 1:11, 1 Chronicles 3:16). And Jehoiakim was cursed by God so that none of his descendants can sit upon David's throne (Jeremiah 36:30).

Contradiction #36Jesus rode into Jerusalem on how many animals? (a) One - a colt (Mark 11:7; cf. Luke 19:35). And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their garments on it; and he sat upon it." (b) Two - a colt and an ass (Matthew 21:7). They brought the ass and the colt and put their garments on them and he sat thereon."

Contradiction #37How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ? (a) By a revelation from heaven (Matthew16:17). (b) His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41).

Contradiction #38Where did Jesus first meet Simon Peter and Andrew? (a) By the sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18-22). (b) On the banks of river Jordan (John 1:42). After that, Jesus decided to go to Galilee (John 1:43).

Contradiction #39When Jesus met Jairus was Jairus' daughter already dead? (a) Yes. Matthew 9:18 quotes him as saying, "My daughter has just died." (b) No. Mark 5:23 quotes him as saying, "My little daughter is at the point of death."

Contradiction #44According to the Gospel of John, what did Jesus say about bearing his own witness? (a) "If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true"(John 5:31). (b) "Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true" (John 8:14).

Contradiction #45When Jesus entered Jerusalem did he cleanse the temple that same day? (a) Yes (Matthew 21:12). (b) No. He went into the temple and looked around, but since it was very late he did nothing. Instead, he went to Bethany to spend the night and returned the next morning to cleanse the temple (Mark 11:1-17).

Contradiction #48What did Jesus say about Peter's denial? (a) "The cock will not crow till you have denied me three times" (John 13:38). (b) "Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times" (Mark 14:30). When the cock crowed once, the three denials were not yet complete (see Mark 14:72). Therefore prediction (a) failed.

Contradiction #50Did Jesus die before the curtain of the temple was torn? (a) Yes (Matthew 27:50-51; Mark 15:37-38). (b) No. After the curtain was torn, then Jesus crying with a loud voice, said, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last (Luke 23:45-46).

Contradiction #51Did Jesus say anything secretly? (a) No. "I have said nothing secretly" (John 18:20). (b) Yes. "He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything" (Mark 4:34). The disciples asked him "Why do you speak to them in parables?" He said, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given" (Matthew 13:10-11).

Contradiction #52Where was Jesus at the sixth hour on the day of the crucifixion? (a) On the cross (Mark 15:23). (b) In Pilate's court (John 19:14).

Contradiction #53The gospels say that two thieves were crucified along with Jesus. Did both thieves mock Jesus? (a) Yes (Mark 15:32). (b) No. One of them mocked Jesus, the other defended Jesus (Luke 23:43).

Contradiction #54Did Jesus ascend to Paradise the same day of the crucifixion? (a) Yes. He said to the thief who defended him, "Today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). (b) No. He said to Mary Magdelene two days later, "I have not yet ascended to the Father" (John 20:17).

Contradiction #55When Paul was on the road to Damascus he saw a light and heard a voice. Did those who were with him hear the voice? (a) Yes (Acts 9:7). (b) No (Acts 22:9).

Contradiction #56When Paul saw the light he fell to the ground. Did his traveling companions also fall to the ground? (a) Yes (Acts 26:14). (b) No (Acts 9:7).

Contradiction #57Did the voice spell out on the spot what Paul's duties were to be? (a) Yes (Acts 26:16-18). (b) No. The voice commanded Paul to go into the city of Damascus and there he will be told what he must do. (Acts 9:7; 22:10).

Contradiction #58When the Israelites dwelt in Shittin they committed adultery with the daughters of Moab. God struck them with a plague. How many people died in that plague? (a) Twenty-four thousand (Numbers 25:1 and 9). (b) Twenty-three thousand (1 Corinthians 10:.

Contradiction #59How many members of the house of Jacob came to Egypt? (a) Seventy souls (Genesis 46:27). (b) Seventy-five souls (Acts 7:14).

Contradiction #60What did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus? (a) He bought a field (Acts 1:18). (b) He threw all of it into the temple and went away. The priests could not put the blood money into the temple treasury, so they used it to buy a field to bury strangers (Matthew 27:5).

Contradiction #61How did Judas die? (a) After he threw the money into the temple he went away and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5). (b) After he bought the field with the price of his evil deed he fell headlong and burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out (Acts 1:18).

Contradiction #62Why is the field called "Field of Blood"? (a) Because the priests bought it with the blood money (Matthew 27:. (b) Because of the bloody death of Judas therein (Acts 1:19).

Contradiction #63Who is a ransom for whom? (a) "The Son of Man came . . . to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). " . . . Christ Jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all . . . " (1 Timothy 2:5-6). (b) "The wicked is a ransom for the righteous, and the faithless for the upright" (Proverbs 21:18).

Contradiction #65What was the exact wording on the cross? (a) "This is Jesus the King of the Jews" (Matthew 27:37). (b) "The King of the Jews" (Mark 15:26) (c) "This is the King of the Jews" (Luke 23:38). (d) "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews" (John 19:19).

Contradiction #66Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist? (a) Yes (Matthew 14:5). (b) No. It was Herodias, the wife of Herod who wanted to kill him. But Herod knew that he was a righteous man and kept him safe (Mark 6:20).

Contradiction #67Who was the tenth disciple of Jesus in the list of twelve? (a) Thaddaeus (Matthew 10:1-4; Mark 3:13-19). (b) Judas son of James is the corresponding name in Luke's gospel (Luke 6:12-16).

Contradiction #68Jesus saw a man sitting at the tax collector's office and called him to be his disciple. What was his name? (a) Matthew (Matthew 9:9). (b) Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27).

Contradiction #69Was Jesus crucified on the daytime before the Passover meal or the daytime after? (a) After (Mark 14:12-17). (b) Before. Before the feast of the Passover (John 13:1) Judas went out at night (John 13:30). The other disciples thought he was going out to buy supplies to prepare for the Passover meal (John 13:29). When Jesus was arrested, the Jews did not enter Pilate's judgement hall because they wanted to stay clean to eat the Passover (John 18:28). When the judgement was pronounced against Jesus, it was about the sixth hour on the day of Preparation for the Passover (John 19:14).

Contradiction #71In the gospels which say that Jesus prayed to avoid the cross, how many times did he move away from his disciples to pray? (a) Three (Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42). (b) One. No opening is left for another two times. (Luke 22:39-46).

Contradiction #72Matthew and Mark agree that Jesus went away and prayed three times. What were the words of the second prayer? (a) Mark does not give the words but he says that the words were the same as the first prayer (Mark 14:39). (b) Matthew gives us the words, and we can see that they are not the same as in the first (Matthew 26:42).

Contradiction #73What did the centurion say when Jesus dies? (a) "Certainly this man was innocent" (Luke 23:47). (b) "Truly this man was the Son of God" (Mark 15:39).

Contradiction #75According to the gospels, what were the last words of Jesus before he died? (a) "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!" (Luke 23:46). (b) "It is finished" (John 19:30).

Contradiction #76When Jesus entered Capernaum he healed the slave of a centurion. Did the centurion come personally to request Jesus for this? (a) Yes (Matthew 8:5). (b) No. He sent some elders of the Jews and his friends (Luke 7:3, 6).

Contradiction #77(a) Adam was told that if and when he eats the forbidden fruit he would die the same day (Genesis 2:17). (b) Adam ate the fruit and went on to live to a ripe old age of 930 years (Genesis 5:5).

Contradiction #78(a) God decided that the life-span of humans will be limited to 120 years (Genesis 6:3). (b) Many people born after that lived longer than 120. Arpachshad lived 438 years. His son Shelah lived 433 years. His son Eber lived 464 years, etc. (Genesis 11:12-16).

Contradiction #79Apart from Jesus did anyone else ascend to heaven? (a) No (John 3:13). (b) Yes. "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven" (2 Kings 2:11).

Contradiction #80Who was high priest when David went into the house of God and ate the consecrated bread? (a) Abiathar (Mark 2:26). (b) Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar (1 Samuel 21:1; 22:20).

Contradiction #81Was Jesus' body wrapped in spices before burial in accordance with Jewish burial customs? (a) Yes and his female disciples witnessed his burial (John 19:39-40). (b) No. Jesus was simply wrapped in a linen shroud. Then the women bought and prepared spices "so that they may go and anoint him [Jesus]" (Mark 16:1).

Contradiction #82When did the women buy the spices? (a) After "the sabbath was past" (Mark 16:1). (b) Before the sabbath. The women "prepared spices and ointments." Then, "on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment" (Luke 23:55 to 24:1).

Contradiction #83At what time of day did the women visit the tomb? (a) "Toward the dawn" (Matthew 28:1). (b) "When the sun had risen" (Mark 16:2).

Contradiction #84What was the purpose for which the women went to the tomb? (a) To anoint Jesus' body with spices (Mark 16:1;Luke 23:55 to 24:1). (b) To see the tomb. Nothing about spices here (Matthew 28:1). For no specified reason. In this gospel the wrapping with spices had been done before the sabbath (John 20:1).

Contradiction #85A large stone was placed at the entrance of the tomb. Where was the stone when the women arrived? (a) They saw that the stone was "Rolled back" (Mark 16:4). They found the stone "rolled away from the tomb" (Luke 24:2). They saw that "the stone had been taken away from the tomb" (John 20:1) (b) As the women approached, an angel descended from heaven, rolled away the stone, and conversed with the women. Matthew made the women witness the spectacular rolling away of the stone (Matthew 28:1-6).

Contradiction #86Did anyone tell the women what happened to Jesus' body? (a) Yes. "A young man in a white robe" (Mark 16:5). "Two men . . . in dazzling apparel" later described as angels (Luke 24:4 and 24:23). An angel - the one who rolled back the stone (Matthew 16:2). In each case the women were told that Jesus had risen from the dead (Matthew 28:7; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5 footnote). (b) No. Mary met no one and returned saying, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him" (John 20:2).

Contradiction #87When did Mary Magdelene first meet the resurrected Jesus? And how did she react? (a) Mary and the other women met Jesus on their way back from their first and only visit to the tomb. They took hold of his feet and worshiped him (Matthew 28:9). (b) On her second visit to the tomb Mary met Jesus just outside the tomb. When she saw Jesus she did not recognize him. She mistook him for the gardener. She still thinks that Jesus' body is laid to rest somewhere and she demands to know where. But when Jesus said her name she at once recognized him and called him "Teacher." Jesus said to her, "Do not hold me . . . " (John 20:11 to 17).

Contradiction #88What was Jesus' instruction for his disciples? (a) "Tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me" (Matthew 28:10). (b) "Go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" (John 20:17).

Contradiction #89When did the disciples return to Galilee? (a) Immediately, because when they saw Jesus in Galilee "some doubted" (Matthew 28:17). This period of uncertainty should not persist. (b) After at least 40 days. That evening the disciples were still in Jerusalem (Luke 24:33). Jesus appeared to them there and told them, "stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49). He was appearing to them "during forty days" (Acts 1:3), and "charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise . . . "(Acts 1:4).

Contradiction #91Who brought Joseph to Egypt? (a) The Ishmaelites bought Joseph and then "took Joseph to Egypt" (Genesis 37:28). (b) "The Midianites had sold him in Egypt" (Genesis 37:36). Joseph said to his brothers "I am your brother, Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt" (Genesis 45:4).

Contradiction #92Does God change his mind? (a) Yes. The word of the Lord came to Samuel: "I repent that I have made Saul King . . ." (1 Samuel 15:10 to 11). (b) No. God "will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent" (1 Samuel 15:29). (c) Yes. "And the Lord repented that he had made Saul King over Israel" (1 Samuel 15:35). Notice that the above three quotes are all from the same chapter of the same book! In addition, the Bible shows that God repented on several other occasions: I. The Lord was sorry that he made man" (Genesis 6:6). " I am sorry that I have made them" (Genesis 6:7) ii."And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people" (Exodus 32:14) iii.(Lots of other such references).

Contradiction #93The Bible says that for each miracle Moses and Aaron demonstrated the same by their secret arts. Then comes the following feat: (a) Moses and Aaron converted all the available water into blood (Exodus 7:20-21). (b) The magicians did the same (Exodus 7:22). This is impossible, since there would have been no water left to convert into blood.

Contradiction #96Does every man sin? (a) Yes. "There is no man who does not sin" (1 Kings 8:46; see also 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; and 1 John 1:8-10). (b) No. True Christians cannot possibly sin, because they are the children of God.

Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God . . (1 John 5:1). "We should be called children of God; and so we are" (1 John 3:1). "He who loves is born of God" (1 John 4:7). "No one born of God commits sin; for God's nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God" (1 John 3:9). But, then again, Yes! "If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:.

Contradiction #97Who will bear whose burden? (a) "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2). (b) "Each man will have to bear his own load" (Galatians 6:5).

Contradiction #99Where was Jesus three days after his baptism? (a) After his baptism, "the spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness forty days . . . (Mark 1:12-13). (b) Next day after the baptism, Jesus selected two disciples. Second day: Jesus went to Galilee — two more disciples. Third day: Jesus was at a wedding feast in Cana in Galilee (see John 1:35; 1:43; 2:1-11).

Contradiction #100Was baby Jesus's life threatened in Jerusalem? (a) Yes, so Joseph fled with him to Egypt and stayed there until Herod died (Matthew 2:13 - 23). (b) No. The family fled nowhere. They calmly presented the child at the Jerusalem temple according to the Jewish customs and returned to Galilee (Luke 2:21-40).

Contradiction #101When Jesus walked on water how did the disciples respond? (a) They worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God" (Matthew 14:33). (b) "They were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened" (Mark 6:51-52).

Recently at a gathering with my former bishop, one of the people there wanted to share a story about something the bishop did at the time of his ordination, where he did it, what he said, etc. After this person finished the very nice story, the bishop smiled and said, "I like your version better, but here's what exactly happened." So apparently when and where it took place was wrong (person said it was during the Ordination Liturgy, bishop said it was his first Liturgy at the Cathedral) and some of the other minor details were also wrong.

The bible is the same way. People have witnessed to the same thing and wrote it down. There are inconsistencies, but that doesn't mean the original event didn't happen. The same way the person who related the story have some of the facts messed up, but that person was a witness to that event that did happen. The fact that the person's story is not consistent with the bishop's story doesn't mean the event never took place. Just because there are inconsistencies with the bible does not mean the bible is all wrong.

Recently at a gathering with my former bishop, one of the people there wanted to share a story about something the bishop did at the time of his ordination, where he did it, what he said, etc. After this person finished the very nice story, the bishop smiled and said, "I like your version better, but here's what exactly happened." So apparently when and where it took place was wrong (person said it was during the Ordination Liturgy, bishop said it was his first Liturgy at the Cathedral) and some of the other minor details were also wrong.

The bible is the same way. People have witnessed to the same thing and wrote it down. There are inconsistencies, but that doesn't mean the original event didn't happen. The same way the person who related the story have some of the facts messed up, but that person was a witness to that event that did happen. The fact that the person's story is not consistent with the bishop's story doesn't mean the event never took place. Just because there are inconsistencies with the bible does not mean the bible is all wrong.

How can we trust something to be inspired fom the Holy Spirit and of divine origin if it has "false" and "contradictorial" claims ?

This is because the Zerubbabel referred to by Luke was not the same person as the Zerubbabel referred to by Matthew.

Contradiction #32How many generations were there from the Babylonian exile until Christ? (a) Matthew says fourteen (Matthew 1:17). (b) But a careful count of the generations reveals only thirteen (see Matthew 1:12-16).

This is because Matthew incorporated Jeconiah into two periods in association with the exile. Jeconiah is the last person of the generations from David to the exile and the first person of the generations from the exile up to Christ's birth.

It is possible that the name Καϊνάμ (Kainam) should be omitted, since two key mss, Ì75vid and D, lack it. But the omission may be a motivated reading: This name is not found in the editions of the Hebrew OT, though it is in the LXX, at Gen 11:12 and 10:24. But the witnesses with this reading (or a variation of it) are substantial: א B L Ë1 33 (Καϊνάμ), A Θ Ψ 0102 Ë13 Ï (Καϊνάν, Kainan). The translation above has adopted the more common spelling “Cainan,” although it is based on the reading Καϊνάμ.https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Luke+3:15

Contradiction #34Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come? (a) Yes (Matthew 11:14, 17:10-13). (b) No (John 1:19-21).

John the Baptist was Elijah to come figuratively, not literally. There is no contradiction.

Contradiction #35Would Jesus inherit David's throne? (a) Yes. So said the angel (Luke 1:32). (b) No, since he is a descendant of Jehoiakim (see Matthew 1:11, 1 Chronicles 3:16). And Jehoiakim was cursed by God so that none of his descendants can sit upon David's throne (Jeremiah 36:30).

This view allows easy resolution of the difficulties surrounding Jeconiah (Matt. 1:11), Joseph's ancestor and David's descendant through Solomon. In 2 Sam. 7:12-17 the perpetuity of the Davidic Kingdom though Solomon (vv. 12-13) is unconditionally promised. Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) later was the royal representative of that line of descent for which eternal perpetuity had been promised. Yet for his gross sin (2 Chron. 24:8-9), Jeconiah was to be recorded as if childless, and no descendant of his would prosper on the Davidic throne (Jer. 22:30). This poses a dilemma. It is Jeconiah through whom the Solomonic descent and legal right to the throne properly should be traced. Solomon's throne had already been unconditionally promised eternal perpetuity. Yet Jeconiah will have no physical descendants who will prosper on that throne. How may both the divine promise and the curse be fulfilled?

First, notice that Jeremiah's account neither indicates Jeconiah would have no seed, nor does is say Jeconiah's line has had its legal claim to the throne removed by his sin. The legal claim to the throne remains with Jeconiah's line, and Matthew records that descent down to Joseph. In 1:16, Matthew preserves the virgin birth of Jesus and at the same time makes clear that Jesus does not come under the curse upon Jeconiah. He breaks the pattern and carefully avoids saying that Joseph (a descendant of Jeconiah) begat Instead he refers to "Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus." In the English translation the antecedent of "whom" is ambiguous. But in the Greek text, "whom" is feminine singular in form and can refer only to Mary who was not a descendant of Jeconiah. As to human parentage, Jesus was born of Mary alone, through Joseph his legal father. As Jesus' legal father, Joseph's legal claim passed to Jesus. But because Jesus was not actually Jeconiah's seed, although of actual Davidic descent through Mary, descendant of Nathan, Jesus escaped the curse on Jeconiah's seed pronounced in Jeremiah (22:30. Thus the problem is resolved.http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/mt1-1.html

Contradiction #36Jesus rode into Jerusalem on how many animals? (a) One - a colt (Mark 11:7; cf. Luke 19:35). And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their garments on it; and he sat upon it." (b) Two - a colt and an ass (Matthew 21:7). They brought the ass and the colt and put their garments on them and he sat thereon."

Contradiction #60What did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus? (a) He bought a field (Acts 1:18). (b) He threw all of it into the temple and went away. The priests could not put the blood money into the temple treasury, so they used it to buy a field to bury strangers (Matthew 27:5).

Contradiction #61How did Judas die? (a) After he threw the money into the temple he went away and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5). (b) After he bought the field with the price of his evil deed he fell headlong and burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out (Acts 1:18).

Contradiction #62Why is the field called "Field of Blood"? (a) Because the priests bought it with the blood money (Matthew 27:8 ). (b) Because of the bloody death of Judas therein (Acts 1:19).

Of the four Evangelists, Matthew is the only writer to narrate Judas’ death (27:3-10) and thus explain why Judas could not see the risen Christ with the other eleven disciples in Galilee (28:16-20). Judas’ exclusion from the group of the twelve apostles is also implied by Mark and Luke, who record that Jesus appeared to and instructed the “eleven” rather than the “twelve” after His resurrection (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:9 and 33). In John’s Gospel, where the phrase “the eleven” does not exist in the resurrection narratives, Judas Iscariot’s exclusion from the rest of the apostles is hinted at in Jesus’ prayer when Jesus identifies Judas Iscariot as the only “son of destruction” in 17:12. Consequently, it is not wrong to say that all of the four Gospels are in perfect harmony with regard to the exclusion of Judas Iscariot from the group of the twelve apostles.

However, things start to look different and get complicated when Luke the Evangelist relates the replacement of Judas Iscariot with Matthias in the Acts of the Apostles, which is the fifth book of the New Testament. The account of Judas’ death given in Acts by Peter prior to the election of the “new” twelfth apostle is apparently different from the one given by Matthew in the 27th chapter of his Gospel. At this point of the discussion, it is plausible to consider that Matthew and Luke follow different traditions concerning Judas’ tragic end. ......http://answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/judas_death.html

How can we trust something to be inspired fom the Holy Spirit and of divine origin if it has "false" and "contradictorial" claims ?

"I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be astonished that I said to you, 'You﻿d must be born from above'. The wind﻿ blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (Jn 3, 6-8)

"Those who are unspiritual﻿ (psychic)﻿ do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else’s scrutiny." (1 Cor. 2, 14-15)

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." (Mt. 5, 18)

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." (Mt. 24, 35)

You either trust Him on this or you don't... There's no way around it.

Contradiction #99Where was Jesus three days after his baptism? (a) After his baptism, "the spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness forty days . . . (Mark 1:12-13). (b) Next day after the baptism, Jesus selected two disciples. Second day: Jesus went to Galilee — two more disciples. Third day: Jesus was at a wedding feast in Cana in Galilee (see John 1:35; 1:43; 2:1-11).

Contradiction #100Was baby Jesus's life threatened in Jerusalem? (a) Yes, so Joseph fled with him to Egypt and stayed there until Herod died (Matthew 2:13 - 23). (b) No. The family fled nowhere. They calmly presented the child at the Jerusalem temple according to the Jewish customs and returned to Galilee (Luke 2:21-40).

Contradiction #101When Jesus walked on water how did the disciples respond? (a) They worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God" (Matthew 14:33). (b) "They were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened" (Mark 6:51-52).

Some of these are silly. If you look at number 98, for example, the primary Apostles were called "the Twelve" regardless of however many there were at that particular time, and we still commemorate them "among the Twelve." This was to distinguish them from "the Seventy."

Number 97 again is silly. Obviously the passage is referring to burdens first, and then to sins second. Verse 4 states clearly that we should not look to get glory or pity from others.

If you think that any of us will take the time to go through all of these things to appease you, you got another thing coming.

Contradiction #100Was baby Jesus's life threatened in Jerusalem? (a) Yes, so Joseph fled with him to Egypt and stayed there until Herod died (Matthew 2:13 - 23). (b) No. The family fled nowhere. They calmly presented the child at the Jerusalem temple according to the Jewish customs and returned to Galilee (Luke 2:21-40).

This is because the infancy narrative in Matthew is related from Joseph's perspective whilst the one in Luke from Mary's perspective. Luke did not need to report the flight to Egypt because Mary was not associated with Egypt and the themes of deportation unlike Joseph the son of Jacob. Even the annunciation follows this pattern in Matthew. According to Matthew an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph only in a dream, which reminds us of Joseph's dreams in the Hebrew Bible.

Contradiction #59How many members of the house of Jacob came to Egypt? (a) Seventy souls (Genesis 46:27). (b) Seventy-five souls (Acts 7:14).

Luke said 75 because he followed the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text.

Contradiction #54Did Jesus ascend to Paradise the same day of the crucifixion? (a) Yes. He said to the thief who defended him, "Today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). (b) No. He said to Mary Magdelene two days later, "I have not yet ascended to the Father" (John 20:17).

This is such a stupid claim of contradiction. The thief did not go to Paradise in his body. This is why it is obvious that Jesus referred to spiritual transfer to Paradise in Luke. However, He referred to His bodily ascension in John. Actually, Jesus did not even use the word ascension in the cross because He had not risen yet.

The objection that Mary's name is not in Luke's version needs only the reply that women were rarely included in Jewish genealogies; though giving her descent, Luke conforms to custom by not mentioning her by name. The objection that Jews never gave the genealogy of women is met by the answer that this is a unique case; Luke is talking about a virgin birth. How else could the physical descent of one who had no human father be traced? Furthermore, Luke has already shown a creative departure from customary genealogical lists by starting with Jesus and ascending up the list of ancestors rather than starting at some point in the past and descending to Jesus.http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/mt1-1.html

It was also because Joseph was included into Mary's genealogy in Luke in the same way as Mary was bound to Joseph's lineage in Matthew through marriage.

The objection that Mary's name is not in Luke's version needs only the reply that women were rarely included in Jewish genealogies; though giving her descent, Luke conforms to custom by not mentioning her by name. The objection that Jews never gave the genealogy of women is met by the answer that this is a unique case; Luke is talking about a virgin birth. How else could the physical descent of one who had no human father be traced? Furthermore, Luke has already shown a creative departure from customary genealogical lists by starting with Jesus and ascending up the list of ancestors rather than starting at some point in the past and descending to Jesus.http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/mt1-1.html

It was also because Joseph was included into Mary's genealogy in Luke in the same way as Mary was bound to Joseph's lineage in Matthew through marriage.

Contradiction #59How many members of the house of Jacob came to Egypt? (a) Seventy souls (Genesis 46:27). (b) Seventy-five souls (Acts 7:14).

Luke said 75 because he followed the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text.

Contradiction #54Did Jesus ascend to Paradise the same day of the crucifixion? (a) Yes. He said to the thief who defended him, "Today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). (b) No. He said to Mary Magdelene two days later, "I have not yet ascended to the Father" (John 20:17).

This is such a stupid claim of contradiction. The thief did not go to Paradise in his body. This is why it is obvious that Jesus referred to spiritual transfer to Paradise in Luke. However, He referred to His bodily ascension in John. Actually, Jesus did not even use the word ascension in the cross because He had not risen yet.

Probably the Septuagint noticed those inconsistencies in the OT. But it is betrayed for this particular forgery. You can count your own self in Genesis and you will realise that actually there are 70 people even though the Septuagint version has it said 75.

Recently at a gathering with my former bishop, one of the people there wanted to share a story about something the bishop did at the time of his ordination, where he did it, what he said, etc. After this person finished the very nice story, the bishop smiled and said, "I like your version better, but here's what exactly happened." So apparently when and where it took place was wrong (person said it was during the Ordination Liturgy, bishop said it was his first Liturgy at the Cathedral) and some of the other minor details were also wrong.

The bible is the same way. People have witnessed to the same thing and wrote it down. There are inconsistencies, but that doesn't mean the original event didn't happen. The same way the person who related the story have some of the facts messed up, but that person was a witness to that event that did happen. The fact that the person's story is not consistent with the bishop's story doesn't mean the event never took place. Just because there are inconsistencies with the bible does not mean the bible is all wrong.

How can we trust something to be inspired fom the Holy Spirit and of divine origin if it has "false" and "contradictorial" claims ?

By whose standards are you judging it as 'false" and "contradictional"? Why should I trust your standards to be the one to discern the Holy Spirit with?

Probably the Septuagint noticed those inconsistencies in the OT. But it is betrayed for this particular forgery. You can count your own self in Genesis and you will realise that actually there are 70 people even though the Septuagint version has it said 75.

The number seventy includes Jacob himself and the seventy-one descendants (including Dinah, Joseph, Manasseh, and Ephraim) listed in vv. 8-25, minus Er and Onan (deceased). The LXX gives the number as “seventy-five”.https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Genesis+46:12

Recently at a gathering with my former bishop, one of the people there wanted to share a story about something the bishop did at the time of his ordination, where he did it, what he said, etc. After this person finished the very nice story, the bishop smiled and said, "I like your version better, but here's what exactly happened." So apparently when and where it took place was wrong (person said it was during the Ordination Liturgy, bishop said it was his first Liturgy at the Cathedral) and some of the other minor details were also wrong.

The bible is the same way. People have witnessed to the same thing and wrote it down. There are inconsistencies, but that doesn't mean the original event didn't happen. The same way the person who related the story have some of the facts messed up, but that person was a witness to that event that did happen. The fact that the person's story is not consistent with the bishop's story doesn't mean the event never took place. Just because there are inconsistencies with the bible does not mean the bible is all wrong.

How can we trust something to be inspired fom the Holy Spirit and of divine origin if it has "false" and "contradictorial" claims ?

By whose standards are you judging it as 'false" and "contradictional"? Why should I trust your standards to be the one to discern the Holy Spirit with?

By the same standard as your story.Two contradicting witnesses cannot be both right on the aspect on which they contradict.

If the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth and the Bible comes from the Holy Spirit than why did he let inconsistencies and corruptions to come on this book if it really is his book, the ultimate book, the most holiest of books?

Recently at a gathering with my former bishop, one of the people there wanted to share a story about something the bishop did at the time of his ordination, where he did it, what he said, etc. After this person finished the very nice story, the bishop smiled and said, "I like your version better, but here's what exactly happened." So apparently when and where it took place was wrong (person said it was during the Ordination Liturgy, bishop said it was his first Liturgy at the Cathedral) and some of the other minor details were also wrong.

The bible is the same way. People have witnessed to the same thing and wrote it down. There are inconsistencies, but that doesn't mean the original event didn't happen. The same way the person who related the story have some of the facts messed up, but that person was a witness to that event that did happen. The fact that the person's story is not consistent with the bishop's story doesn't mean the event never took place. Just because there are inconsistencies with the bible does not mean the bible is all wrong.

How can we trust something to be inspired fom the Holy Spirit and of divine origin if it has "false" and "contradictorial" claims ?

By whose standards are you judging it as 'false" and "contradictional"? Why should I trust your standards to be the one to discern the Holy Spirit with?

Be careful with rhetoricals, they can turn on you and leave you speechless.

In virtue of what do you trust anyone to "discern the Holy Spirit"?

I can answer the question for you and for the OP. Nether of you are capable of giving a complete answer. You simply don't know. You have some reasons which for the most part are probably ad hoc and that is about it.

This goes to the question about modernity related to the gay marriage slavery whatever thread.

By the same standard as your story.Two contradicting witnesses cannot be both right on the aspect on which they contradict.

If the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth and the Bible comes from the Holy Spirit than why did he let inconsistencies and corruptions to come on this book if it really is his book, the ultimate book, the most holiest of books?

In Christianity the Bible is not the exact word of God. We have the eternal Word of God in the person of Jesus. There is no dictation or direct revelation of a book in Judaism or Christianity. Your particular designation (the ultimate book, the holiest book) reminds one of the Islamic view of scripture. Are you in any way associated with Islam? It is also interesting that you quote these so-called contradictions from an Islamic clown named Shabir Ally, who copies and pastes Western atheists' claims.

By the same standard as your story.Two contradicting witnesses cannot be both right on the aspect on which they contradict.

Sure they can. Your comments are as naive as the person I just chuckled at in the last reply.

The excluded middle is the structure of a privative truth, it has nothing ever to do with from the whence something like "logic" comes forth.

Again, you kids can't get a hold of modernity all the while wanting to critique it, while repeating its excesses, and mock those who attempt to understand modernity and understand the time we are in now.

Most of the contradictions you list do not appear in its original languages especially when translating from Masoretic (aside from the fact that the Masoretic isn't even an accurate source) the numbering system in Hebrew is a little confusing and frustrating at times especially since most Bible translators have only a few years to study Hebrew. Also the Protestants like to change certain wordings and statistics in order to match the expectations of secular society. For example, the Nearly Inspired Version (NIV) translates a clear 120 cubits in reference to the porch on Solomon's temple into twenty Cubits as many believe a 120 cubit porch is highly unlikely (or even impossible) and all you would have to do is take out the ק and it would equal twenty. Of course, this is breaking the warning in Revelations and is not even found in any text as far as i know of. Unfortunately, this happens throughout the Bible ESPECIALLY in the OT.

Most of the contradictions you list do not appear in its original languages especially when translating from Masoretic (aside from the fact that the Masoretic isn't even an accurate source) the numbering system in Hebrew is a little confusing and frustrating at times especially since most Bible translators have only a few years to study Hebrew. Also the Protestants like to change certain wordings and statistics in order to match the expectations of secular society. For example, the Nearly Inspired Version (NIV) translates a clear 120 cubits in reference to the porch on Solomon's temple into twenty Cubits as many believe a 120 cubit porch is highly unlikely (or even impossible) and all you would have to do is take out the ק and it would equal twenty. Of course, this is breaking the warning in Revelations and is not even found in any text as far as i know of. Unfortunately, this happens throughout the Bible ESPECIALLY in the OT.

I believe everyone else answered most of the rest.

There certainly are many copyist errors in the Hebrew Bible and they are mostly related to names and numbers.

Recently at a gathering with my former bishop, one of the people there wanted to share a story about something the bishop did at the time of his ordination, where he did it, what he said, etc. After this person finished the very nice story, the bishop smiled and said, "I like your version better, but here's what exactly happened." So apparently when and where it took place was wrong (person said it was during the Ordination Liturgy, bishop said it was his first Liturgy at the Cathedral) and some of the other minor details were also wrong.

The bible is the same way. People have witnessed to the same thing and wrote it down. There are inconsistencies, but that doesn't mean the original event didn't happen. The same way the person who related the story have some of the facts messed up, but that person was a witness to that event that did happen. The fact that the person's story is not consistent with the bishop's story doesn't mean the event never took place. Just because there are inconsistencies with the bible does not mean the bible is all wrong.

How can we trust something to be inspired fom the Holy Spirit and of divine origin if it has "false" and "contradictorial" claims ?

By whose standards are you judging it as 'false" and "contradictional"? Why should I trust your standards to be the one to discern the Holy Spirit with?

By the same standard as your story.Two contradicting witnesses cannot be both right on the aspect on which they contradict.

If the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth and the Bible comes from the Holy Spirit than why did he let inconsistencies and corruptions to come on this book if it really is his book, the ultimate book, the most holiest of books?

But what is the point of the story? Is it the sequence of events? Or the event itself? Perhaps I left that part out, but the point of the story was the bishop calling everyone up to the front to stand beside him and giving the people a message that he needs them to stand with him. Now, whether this message was delivered during the ordination or the day after during his first Divine Liturgy as a bishop of the eparchy, would have it changed that message? It is like the resurrection stories. Who was the first to the grave? Does it matter? The point is that Jesus resurrected. If people got the order of people coming to the grave wrong, does it change the fact that the resurrection did happen?

You are right, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth. But are we looking for Truth? Or are we just prooftexting scripture to prove a point?

By the same standard as your story.Two contradicting witnesses cannot be both right on the aspect on which they contradict.

Sure they can. Your comments are as naive as the person I just chuckled at in the last reply.

The excluded middle is the structure of a privative truth, it has nothing ever to do with from the whence something like "logic" comes forth.

Again, you kids can't get a hold of modernity all the while wanting to critique it, while repeating its excesses, and mock those who attempt to understand modernity and understand the time we are in now.

Well, we find your oblivion humorous. Keep it up.

Orthonorm, I say this because I am genuinly interested. Could you please explain your post a little more? I didnt really get the modernity-part.

Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

Recently at a gathering with my former bishop, one of the people there wanted to share a story about something the bishop did at the time of his ordination, where he did it, what he said, etc. After this person finished the very nice story, the bishop smiled and said, "I like your version better, but here's what exactly happened." So apparently when and where it took place was wrong (person said it was during the Ordination Liturgy, bishop said it was his first Liturgy at the Cathedral) and some of the other minor details were also wrong.

The bible is the same way. People have witnessed to the same thing and wrote it down. There are inconsistencies, but that doesn't mean the original event didn't happen. The same way the person who related the story have some of the facts messed up, but that person was a witness to that event that did happen. The fact that the person's story is not consistent with the bishop's story doesn't mean the event never took place. Just because there are inconsistencies with the bible does not mean the bible is all wrong.

How can we trust something to be inspired fom the Holy Spirit and of divine origin if it has "false" and "contradictorial" claims ?

By whose standards are you judging it as 'false" and "contradictional"? Why should I trust your standards to be the one to discern the Holy Spirit with?

Be careful with rhetoricals, they can turn on you and leave you speechless.

In virtue of what do you trust anyone to "discern the Holy Spirit"?

I can answer the question for you and for the OP. Nether of you are capable of giving a complete answer. You simply don't know. You have some reasons which for the most part are probably ad hoc and that is about it.

This goes to the question about modernity related to the gay marriage slavery whatever thread.

Of course there are those we can trust. If we don't, why are we in a Church, or any other church? I'm pretty sure the Fathers have seen the inconsistencies when they were compiling the Bible. It wasn't a problem for them, why should it be a problem for us?

Recently at a gathering with my former bishop, one of the people there wanted to share a story about something the bishop did at the time of his ordination, where he did it, what he said, etc. After this person finished the very nice story, the bishop smiled and said, "I like your version better, but here's what exactly happened." So apparently when and where it took place was wrong (person said it was during the Ordination Liturgy, bishop said it was his first Liturgy at the Cathedral) and some of the other minor details were also wrong.

The bible is the same way. People have witnessed to the same thing and wrote it down. There are inconsistencies, but that doesn't mean the original event didn't happen. The same way the person who related the story have some of the facts messed up, but that person was a witness to that event that did happen. The fact that the person's story is not consistent with the bishop's story doesn't mean the event never took place. Just because there are inconsistencies with the bible does not mean the bible is all wrong.

How can we trust something to be inspired fom the Holy Spirit and of divine origin if it has "false" and "contradictorial" claims ?

By whose standards are you judging it as 'false" and "contradictional"? Why should I trust your standards to be the one to discern the Holy Spirit with?

Be careful with rhetoricals, they can turn on you and leave you speechless.

In virtue of what do you trust anyone to "discern the Holy Spirit"?

I can answer the question for you and for the OP. Nether of you are capable of giving a complete answer. You simply don't know. You have some reasons which for the most part are probably ad hoc and that is about it.

This goes to the question about modernity related to the gay marriage slavery whatever thread.

Of course there are those we can trust. If we don't, why are we in a Church, or any other church? I'm pretty sure the Fathers have seen the inconsistencies when they were compiling the Bible. It wasn't a problem for them, why should it be a problem for us?

See how you didn't answer my question? You simply pointed out that people believe different things to be true and I am guessing for different reasons.

Most of the contradictions you list do not appear in its original languages especially when translating from Masoretic (aside from the fact that the Masoretic isn't even an accurate source) the numbering system in Hebrew is a little confusing and frustrating at times especially since most Bible translators have only a few years to study Hebrew. Also the Protestants like to change certain wordings and statistics in order to match the expectations of secular society. For example, the Nearly Inspired Version (NIV) translates a clear 120 cubits in reference to the porch on Solomon's temple into twenty Cubits as many believe a 120 cubit porch is highly unlikely (or even impossible) and all you would have to do is take out the ק and it would equal twenty. Of course, this is breaking the warning in Revelations and is not even found in any text as far as i know of. Unfortunately, this happens throughout the Bible ESPECIALLY in the OT.

I believe everyone else answered most of the rest.

There certainly are many copyist errors in the Hebrew Bible and they are mostly related to names and numbers.

Indeed, which settles maybe 90% of inconsistencies, the rest is either allegory or misinterpreted in some other way.

By the same standard as your story.Two contradicting witnesses cannot be both right on the aspect on which they contradict.

Sure they can. Your comments are as naive as the person I just chuckled at in the last reply.

The excluded middle is the structure of a privative truth, it has nothing ever to do with from the whence something like "logic" comes forth.

Again, you kids can't get a hold of modernity all the while wanting to critique it, while repeating its excesses, and mock those who attempt to understand modernity and understand the time we are in now.

Well, we find your oblivion humorous. Keep it up.

Orthonorm, I say this because I am genuinly interested. Could you please explain your post a little more? I didnt really get the modernity-part.

I am cross threading today. One could call it post-modern.

Seriously, I've been posting today a lot and it all seems to focus around a few things.

This whole modernity is a bad word. But how would you characterize modernity. What work would you say is modernity par excellence?

What problem did it primarily deal with? What was its method? What was the upshot of the work? Has something radically shifted within Western metaphysics (which is to say metaphysics, since all metaphysics is Western).

I've blathered about this before around here and more than a few probably know where I am angling.

This board is often pshaw! modern this! modern that! and post-modern is just another way of saying I don't know. Well the problem arises when such reactionary statements are constantly being framed within a primarily late modern framework or hyper- / postmodern framework.

In short it drives me crazy.

Read something more edifying than Church Father this or that, if you are going to talk philosophy. Seriously. The Church Fathers at their best used the philosophical language and arguments of their age to make theological apologetics to the intelligentsia of the era and added indirectly to the problems of their respective eras. It is neither theology proper nor philosophy. After a while, its the Gospel with century upon century of dead barnacles attached to it.

Academically interesting today? Yes. Important, no.

I can see why the Coptic Pope (I dunno if it is correct to use the title like this) Shenouda III of Blessed Memory strikes such a cord with many. I know that jeremy really digs him and I can see why. It's as if he takes all this complicated mess we have made (which I do enjoy, but also have the requisite background to at least make informed opinions on such matters) and distills it into an immediately convincing and "useful" message.

I think this is why folks like the Desert Fathers and Mothers. Fr. Thom Hopko.

There is a real immediacy in the line of thinking which need not be without some intellectual work.

Back to your question, let me ask you some, how is the original post, modern? How is nearly every reply to it? What obvious underlying assumptions are at work which typify modernity?

If there is an answer which is not caught in the complete thrall of modernity, how isn't it?

Sorry, if this hasn't been helpful. I should have been ranting about capitalism and gays.

Recently at a gathering with my former bishop, one of the people there wanted to share a story about something the bishop did at the time of his ordination, where he did it, what he said, etc. After this person finished the very nice story, the bishop smiled and said, "I like your version better, but here's what exactly happened." So apparently when and where it took place was wrong (person said it was during the Ordination Liturgy, bishop said it was his first Liturgy at the Cathedral) and some of the other minor details were also wrong.

The bible is the same way. People have witnessed to the same thing and wrote it down. There are inconsistencies, but that doesn't mean the original event didn't happen. The same way the person who related the story have some of the facts messed up, but that person was a witness to that event that did happen. The fact that the person's story is not consistent with the bishop's story doesn't mean the event never took place. Just because there are inconsistencies with the bible does not mean the bible is all wrong.

How can we trust something to be inspired fom the Holy Spirit and of divine origin if it has "false" and "contradictorial" claims ?

By whose standards are you judging it as 'false" and "contradictional"? Why should I trust your standards to be the one to discern the Holy Spirit with?

Be careful with rhetoricals, they can turn on you and leave you speechless.

In virtue of what do you trust anyone to "discern the Holy Spirit"?

I can answer the question for you and for the OP. Nether of you are capable of giving a complete answer. You simply don't know. You have some reasons which for the most part are probably ad hoc and that is about it.

This goes to the question about modernity related to the gay marriage slavery whatever thread.

Of course there are those we can trust. If we don't, why are we in a Church, or any other church? I'm pretty sure the Fathers have seen the inconsistencies when they were compiling the Bible. It wasn't a problem for them, why should it be a problem for us?

See how you didn't answer my question? You simply pointed out that people believe different things to be true and I am guessing for different reasons.

By the same standard as your story.Two contradicting witnesses cannot be both right on the aspect on which they contradict.

Sure they can. Your comments are as naive as the person I just chuckled at in the last reply.

The excluded middle is the structure of a privative truth, it has nothing ever to do with from the whence something like "logic" comes forth.

Again, you kids can't get a hold of modernity all the while wanting to critique it, while repeating its excesses, and mock those who attempt to understand modernity and understand the time we are in now.

Well, we find your oblivion humorous. Keep it up.

Logical fallacy.

If two details contradict each other they can't both be true. Either both are false, or one is and the other is not.

Recently at a gathering with my former bishop, one of the people there wanted to share a story about something the bishop did at the time of his ordination, where he did it, what he said, etc. After this person finished the very nice story, the bishop smiled and said, "I like your version better, but here's what exactly happened." So apparently when and where it took place was wrong (person said it was during the Ordination Liturgy, bishop said it was his first Liturgy at the Cathedral) and some of the other minor details were also wrong.

The bible is the same way. People have witnessed to the same thing and wrote it down. There are inconsistencies, but that doesn't mean the original event didn't happen. The same way the person who related the story have some of the facts messed up, but that person was a witness to that event that did happen. The fact that the person's story is not consistent with the bishop's story doesn't mean the event never took place. Just because there are inconsistencies with the bible does not mean the bible is all wrong.

How can we trust something to be inspired fom the Holy Spirit and of divine origin if it has "false" and "contradictorial" claims ?

By whose standards are you judging it as 'false" and "contradictional"? Why should I trust your standards to be the one to discern the Holy Spirit with?

By the same standard as your story.Two contradicting witnesses cannot be both right on the aspect on which they contradict.

If the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth and the Bible comes from the Holy Spirit than why did he let inconsistencies and corruptions to come on this book if it really is his book, the ultimate book, the most holiest of books?

But what is the point of the story? Is it the sequence of events? Or the event itself? Perhaps I left that part out, but the point of the story was the bishop calling everyone up to the front to stand beside him and giving the people a message that he needs them to stand with him. Now, whether this message was delivered during the ordination or the day after during his first Divine Liturgy as a bishop of the eparchy, would have it changed that message? It is like the resurrection stories. Who was the first to the grave? Does it matter? The point is that Jesus resurrected. If people got the order of people coming to the grave wrong, does it change the fact that the resurrection did happen?

You are right, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth. But are we looking for Truth? Or are we just prooftexting scripture to prove a point?

If people got that wrong what makes us believe they didn't get other things wrong also? The Bible tries to pass as a book inspired by the Holy Spirit and a very holy book. Is the Holy Spirit detailistically contradicting or mathematically inaccurate? Were the people who wrote the Bible inspired? Than why couldn't they get their facts right? It looks to me that that is the contrary of inspiration. Does the Holy Spirit inspire people into contradicting each other? If this book is so holy and of divine origin than why did the Holy Spirit admit the corruption of it, even if it happened gradually? It seemed to have no problem in strucking people death who only touched the casket of the Ark that contained only the tablements with the 10 commandments. If it is inspired by the Holy Spirit why didn't the Holy Spirit guard over its preservation?

Was Paul or whoever wrote that all Scripture is inspired by God and the Holy Spirit , a liar or an ignorant?

You seem to have an extreme definition of what "inspired" means The Church is theanthropic--and the human element can and always does mess things up. Adam. Eve. Noah. Peter. Abraham. David. Did anyone but Christ get everything right? Didn't most of them actually do some pretty horrible things? Inspiring someone doesn't automatically make them infallible.

You seem to have an extreme definition of what "inspired" means The Church is theanthropic--and the human element can and always does mess things up. Adam. Eve. Noah. Peter. Abraham. David. Did anyone but Christ get everything right? Didn't most of them actually do some pretty horrible things? Inspiring someone doesn't automatically make them infallible.

By the same standard as your story.Two contradicting witnesses cannot be both right on the aspect on which they contradict.

Sure they can. Your comments are as naive as the person I just chuckled at in the last reply.

The excluded middle is the structure of a privative truth, it has nothing ever to do with from the whence something like "logic" comes forth.

Again, you kids can't get a hold of modernity all the while wanting to critique it, while repeating its excesses, and mock those who attempt to understand modernity and understand the time we are in now.

Well, we find your oblivion humorous. Keep it up.

Orthonorm, I say this because I am genuinly interested. Could you please explain your post a little more? I didnt really get the modernity-part.

I am cross threading today. One could call it post-modern.

Seriously, I've been posting today a lot and it all seems to focus around a few things.

This whole modernity is a bad word. But how would you characterize modernity. What work would you say is modernity par excellence?

What problem did it primarily deal with? What was its method? What was the upshot of the work? Has something radically shifted within Western metaphysics (which is to say metaphysics, since all metaphysics is Western).

I've blathered about this before around here and more than a few probably know where I am angling.

This board is often pshaw! modern this! modern that! and post-modern is just another way of saying I don't know. Well the problem arises when such reactionary statements are constantly being framed within a primarily late modern framework or hyper- / postmodern framework.

In short it drives me crazy.

Read something more edifying than Church Father this or that, if you are going to talk philosophy. Seriously. The Church Fathers at their best used the philosophical language and arguments of their age to make theological apologetics to the intelligentsia of the era and added indirectly to the problems of their respective eras. It is neither theology proper nor philosophy. After a while, its the Gospel with century upon century of dead barnacles attached to it.

Academically interesting today? Yes. Important, no.

I can see why the Coptic Pope (I dunno if it is correct to use the title like this) Shenouda III of Blessed Memory strikes such a cord with many. I know that jeremy really digs him and I can see why. It's as if he takes all this complicated mess we have made (which I do enjoy, but also have the requisite background to at least make informed opinions on such matters) and distills it into an immediately convincing and "useful" message.

I think this is why folks like the Desert Fathers and Mothers. Fr. Thom Hopko.

There is a real immediacy in the line of thinking which need not be without some intellectual work.

Back to your question, let me ask you some, how is the original post, modern? How is nearly every reply to it? What obvious underlying assumptions are at work which typify modernity?

If there is an answer which is not caught in the complete thrall of modernity, how isn't it?

Sorry, if this hasn't been helpful. I should have been ranting about capitalism and gays.

Thank you orthonorm.I find your posts interesting, even though I have a hard time understanding everything you say. I really can't say, whether this thread is modern or post-modern or anything. I think you have a better chance than I.

Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

Recently at a gathering with my former bishop, one of the people there wanted to share a story about something the bishop did at the time of his ordination, where he did it, what he said, etc. After this person finished the very nice story, the bishop smiled and said, "I like your version better, but here's what exactly happened." So apparently when and where it took place was wrong (person said it was during the Ordination Liturgy, bishop said it was his first Liturgy at the Cathedral) and some of the other minor details were also wrong.

The bible is the same way. People have witnessed to the same thing and wrote it down. There are inconsistencies, but that doesn't mean the original event didn't happen. The same way the person who related the story have some of the facts messed up, but that person was a witness to that event that did happen. The fact that the person's story is not consistent with the bishop's story doesn't mean the event never took place. Just because there are inconsistencies with the bible does not mean the bible is all wrong.

How can we trust something to be inspired fom the Holy Spirit and of divine origin if it has "false" and "contradictorial" claims ?

I have thought of that too. But there is the other possibility as well. That the lord said something and our ears heard something else. It doesn't mean God is a liar, it means we didn't hear correctly.

If two details contradict each other they can't both be true. Either both are false, or one is and the other is not.

Logical fallacy of false dilemma.

Differences in writing style do not necessarily mean contradictions. Shabir Ally and you seemingly tend to consider every difference in details a contradiction, which is not the case. The differences are natural because otherwise we would not have the same message (Good News) recorded in four different forms.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth